Jack White
-
Posts
7,931 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jack White
-
-
Thanks for putting up the picture, Mr. White. As you can see - the two film frames (one from the Nix film and the other from Zapruder's film) match the overhead diagram I posted. Zapruder's camera had already passed over the two people in question when he filmed James Altgens at Z345 and as the film shows - Zapruder kept panning away in a southwesternly direction until he reached Z369. There is no reason to have believed that the people seen in the Nix film should be seen in the Zapruder film at frame 369.I am showing that the films DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH
EACH OTHER. I am saying that those who faked the films made mistakes.
And I am saying that the two films show exactly the same thing and that you totally messed up by not understanding the geography of the Plaza. The overhead map shows this quite clearly. If the Zapruder film and all the other assassination images have been altered or faked, then let them be exposed in that light for the right reasons and not because of someone's faulty approach to testing them.
Now would you like for me to explain the mistake you made about Toni Foster appearing to be seven feet tall?
I made no mistakes about the Franzens nor Toni Foster.
You have shown nothing to the contrary. What qualifies
you to say I have no understanding of the geography of
Dealey Plaza?
Think what you will. Some people prefer not to know.
Jack White
-
Now about your position: If you feel that the Nix film is fake and also the Zapruder film is fake, then why would you be attempting to use one to disprove the other? According to your three points listed above - you said that one film cannot be used to verify the other, yet that is exactly what you did in TGZFH when trying to show fakery.
Mr. Peters...you still do not comprehend what I say.
I am not using one film to disprove the other! I am
showing that the films DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH
EACH OTHER. I am saying that those who faked the
films made mistakes. I am saying that NEITHER film
is genuine. Can you not see this distinction?
I am using Nix to say that NIX IS NOT GENUINE,
because the fakery is inept....regardless of what
Zapruder shows.
I have previously said that both films are altered.
Therefore comparing them is meaningless. It is
a simple concept.
Jack White
Some here may be mystified about what Mr. Peters
is referring to.
Here is my specific research which he finds fault with.
It appears both in MIDP and TGZFH.
Jack White
-
Now about your position: If you feel that the Nix film is fake and also the Zapruder film is fake, then why would you be attempting to use one to disprove the other? According to your three points listed above - you said that one film cannot be used to verify the other, yet that is exactly what you did in TGZFH when trying to show fakery.
Mr. Peters...you still do not comprehend what I say.
I am not using one film to disprove the other! I am
showing that the films DO NOT CORRESPOND WITH
EACH OTHER. I am saying that those who faked the
films made mistakes. I am saying that NEITHER film
is genuine. Can you not see this distinction?
I am using Nix to say that NIX IS NOT GENUINE,
because the fakery is inept....regardless of what
Zapruder shows.
I have previously said that both films are altered.
Therefore comparing them is meaningless. It is
a simple concept.
Jack White
-
My most recent admission of error was that I always had considered the Moorman Polaroid was GENUINE. I now recognize that it has been tampered with.
Jack White
That would be interesting. Would you please elaborate?
Wim
I refer you pages 254-257 in TGZFH for
a full explanation.
Don't have the book? Get it.
Jack White
Here is the relevant illustration showing why the
Moorman Polaroid has been altered.
Jack White
-
My most recent admission of error was that I always had considered the Moorman Polaroid was GENUINE. I now recognize that it has been tampered with.
Jack White
That would be interesting. Would you please elaborate?
Wim
I refer you pages 254-257 in TGZFH for
a full explanation.
Don't have the book? Get it.
Jack White
-
Rather than specific questions be put to Mr. White concerning the "Hoax" book he took part in, maybe he would like to bring up any one of the claims he made concerning the photographical record of the assassination being faked and I'll as gently as I can tell him how he misread the photograph or film frame in my opinion. I have viewed the critiques of Mr. White's work concerning the 'Great Zapruder Hoax' and they seemed to be easy enough for anyone to follow and understand that I believe I can relay their message fairly easily.
For instance, Jack White mentions there being "missing people" from the Zapruder film in Z369. These are people that the Hoax book shows between Orville Nix and the Franzen's. Jack obviously misread the angle at which they should have been seen in the Zapruder film for these missing people to be seen in Z369 as they are seen in the Nix film, then Zapruder would have to be looking back the other way towards Nix at the same moment in time. When Orville Nix has his camera pointed directly at Abraham Zapruder we see Toni Foster and the limo between the two cameras. The Frazen's, nor the missing couple are anywhere along this line of sight in Nix frame 23 just as Zapruder is nowhere to be seen in the Nix frame Mr. White uses to show this missing couple.
If one simply looks above James Altgens in Z345, they will see this missing couple from the waist down to their shoes. The photographical record was simple misread by Mr. White.
Mr. Peters...I have read your comments, but they do not seem to be a question
for me. Do you have a question?
I assume your statements are that I have misread what is shown in Nix in
comparison to Zapruder. I remind you of my stated position:
1. The Zapruder film is faked or tampered with.
2. The Nix film is tampered with.
3. Saying I have erred because of WHAT THEY SHOW is meaningless
if the films have been tampered with.
You make the mistake of considering one or both GENUINE. The things
I point out in TGZFH result from some of the tampering, so one film cannot
be used to verify the other.
I believe I have put in a great deal more time studying these films in
great detail than most have.
Jack White
-
I cannot conceive of all these organizations coming together to conspire to kill the president of the United States. They would know that it would only take one organization to betray the operation (and they all had good reason to hurt other organizations in the cabal).
John... Jim Marrs and I discussed this a lot back in the 80s. Jim explained that these diverse groups did not "COME TOGETHER", but each had their own motives. Jim proposed that they had a loose connection which Jim referred to as having happened often in history... A CONCERT OF IDEAS.
That is, they were LIKE-MINDED, working for the same goal, but not necessarily cooperating. He gave as an example... suppose the Dallas police or Secret Service let it be known that PROTECTION WOULD BE LAX IN DEALEY PLAZA, then another group WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE of the laxity, without actually being in league with those who leaked the information.
As for nobody talking, dozens did. Foremost of these was LBJ himself, who confided in his Dallas lover, Madeleine Brown.
Jack
-
What about all the witnesses who observed a plane crashing into the Pentagon?
Witness statements re Pentagon crash:
EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS:
Boeing 757 or military craft?
Many eyewitnesses saw some kind of craft hit the Pentagon. Was what they saw a Boeing 757-200 or was it a missile?
Eyewitnesses confirm having seen something fly into the Pentagon. However, their accounts differ largely when it comes to describing the nature of the aircraft in more detail.
« We heard what sounded like a missile »
Several eyewitnesses testify to having seen a large airliner. An anonymous woman interviewed by CNN on September 11 confirms having seen "a commercial plane". Army Captain Lincoln Liebner told the AFP: "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low." Since our article: Pentagon: Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! went on-line, many other eyewitnesses have come forward on the internet.
However, other accounts reported in the American press, immediately after the event, speak of a smaller aircraft that, in flight, was very unlike a commercial airliner, and even resembled a winged missile.
The aircraft "appeared to hold about 8 to 12 people" and "sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter", explained Steve Patterson to the Washington Post, on September 11.
«That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that (flight) pattern»
Tom Seibert, a network engineer at the Pentagon, told the Washington Post: "We heard what sounded like a missile, then we heard a loud boom."
«There wasn't anything in the air, except for one airplane, and it looked like it was loitering over Georgetown, in a high, left-hand bank", explained U.S. Army Brigadier General Clyde Vaughn, director of military support, to CNN. "That may have been the plane. I have never seen one on that (flight) pattern.»
« It was like a cruise missile with wings »
Just after the attack, Mike Walter, journalist at USA Today, explained to the Washington Post and CNN that "it was like a cruise missile with wings".
Danielle O'Brien, air controller at Washington's Dulles airport, from where American Airways flight 77 took off, explained that the craft that hit the Pentagon had the speed and maneuverability of a "military plane". Her account was published on the ABCnews site and used on the National Air Traffic Controllers Association site. We reproduce an extract of it here:
« I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified plane to the southwest of Dulles, moving at a very high rate of speed … I had literally a blip and nothing more. »
O'Brien asked the controller sitting next to her, Tom Howell, if he saw it too.
« I said, 'Oh my God, it looks like he's headed to the White House', » recalls Howell. « I was yelling … 'We've got a target headed right for the White House!' At a speed of about 500 miles an hour, the plane was headed straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.»
« The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in
the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was
a military plane » says O'Brien. « You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe. »
« The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in
the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was
a military plane »
« The plane was between 12 and 14 miles away » says O'Brien, « and it was just a countdown. Ten miles west. Nine miles west … Our supervisor picked up our line to the White House and started relaying to them the information, [that] we have an unidentified very fast-moving aircraft inbound toward your vicinity, 8 miles west. »
Vice President Cheney was rushed to a special basement bunker. White House staff members were told to run away from the building
« And it went 'six, five, four', And I had it in my mouth to say, three, and all of a sudden the plane turned away. In the room, it was almost a sense of relief. This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we sat back in our chairs and breathed for just a second », says O'Brien.
But the plane continued to turn right until it had made a 360-degree maneuver.
« We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. And we waited. And your heart is just beating out of your chest waiting to hear what's happened, », says O'Brien. « and then the Washington National [Airport] controllers came over our speakers in our room and said,'Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit.' »
On September 11, the State Department for Defense confirmed that a Boeing 757 had crashed on the Pentagon. Eyewitnesses indeed talk of a flying craft. But there is no absolute consensus that this craft was an airliner. Maybe the official version of events subsequently influenced eyewitness accounts. Two French newspapers, Le Monde and Libération, have both published counter-arguments to our own. Both cite Steve Patterson and Mike Walter to prove how wrong we were to doubt the Boeing 757 hypothesis. Such accounts, those first reported in the American press, should, however, open up new lines of enquiry. The first said that the aircraft «appeared to hold about 8 to 12 people»and «sounded like the high-pitched squeal of a fighter.». The second said that it «was like a cruise missile with wings.»...
This begs the question: What evidence is available to determine the nature of the craft ? Please read the article that follows: The evidence: One hole, 2 1/2 yards in diameter
-
Sorry...didn't mean to imply you were saying the Republican party.
So LBJ's motive was simply that he hated Kennedy (even though he agreed to be his VP 3 years earlier) and LBJ knew he would get to be President for 5 years?
What were the motives for the others?
Why did they want LBJ to be President for 5 years?
I you have not read enough of the historical
record to KNOW THE MOTIVES OF EACH OF THE
SUSPECTS, I cannot help you. I do not have
a time to write a NEW book on topics which
have already been well covered in several
hundred other books.
Go to the library. Do your homework.
Jack White
-
That's a pretty wide range of people, but you only say why the Republicans would have done it. You don't cite a reason for anyone else.
My question was "why," not who.
So what did it accomplish to have LBJ as President for 5 years? Why did someone want LBJ to be President for 5 years?
You seem to be the consumate "theorist" with no answers, like lots of "theorists."
I did not say that this diverse GROUP had a COMMON motive.
I said that EACH OF THOSE NAMED HAD THEIR OWN MOTIVES.
It is a very simple concept. Each member of the cabal had
his own motive. IT WAS NOT A GROUP MOTIVE.
LBJ wanted to be president. He hated JFK. He wanted to escape
disgrace for criminal activities.
Others had THEIR own motives.
You name the motives for each. But it really would take a BIG BOOK
to list all of the reasons.
Understand?
Jack;)
PS...I did NOT say THE Republicans. I said Republicans. You imply
that I said THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. NOT SO!
-
Why did someone want Johnson to become President for 5 years, so much so that they undertook the monumental task of assassinating Kennedy and covering it up?
EACH of the following junta members had DIFFERING motives:
LBJ and cronies
Hoover and cronies
Dulles and cronies, not necessarily THE CIA
Nixon (picked to succeed LBJ)
Joint Chiefs and select military
Oil Men/the ultra wealthy
Disgruntled CIA "rogues" (not full agency)
Right wingers (incl police and Secret Service)
Republicans (stop the Kennedy DYNASTY)
Anti-Castro Cubans
Anti-Communists
Mafia...US and Cuban
Big business, steel/banking/MIC
Note that I did not include Kruschev or Castro.
Jack
-
I notice no one is responding to the poll on what purpose it served to kill JFK. I guess nobody with theories can say what the actual reason for killing Kennedy was.
The actual reason for killing Kennedy was to change him
from a live person to a dead one, in order that his
successor could replace him, to the great satisfaction
of all those who killed him.
Simple.
Jack
-
I was at the closed-door Congressional hearings in 1984. I heard the testimony with my own ears.
I detected KGB infiltration of the CIA during my initial contact with the CIA as a private citizen in 1977. I became aware of its extent over the next several years as I tried to expose it, and I also became aware of profound corruption within the CIA. Some of the CIA field agents that I interacted with filed intelligence reports about the KGB infiltration, but it did not yield any results as the KGB officers had seniority over the field agents that filed the reports. The KGB and renegade CIA officers implemented CIA operations targeting me to prevent me from exposing the infiltration and the corruption.
In 1984, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, former CIA Director William Colby, and former Deputy Director Frank Carlucci all cooperated with me in exposing the KGB infiltration, and as such, I was at the closed-door Congressional hearings in 1984.
The operations targeting me were supposed to come to an end after that, but renegade CIA officers were intent on thriving on the corruption and it was of vital importance for them to make sure that the KGB infiltration and the corruption were never made public. As such, the operations targeting me have continued unabated, other than a few brief periods in 1984 when I got cooperation from the Reagan Administration and certain elements of the CIA.
Mr. Frank has an interesting connection to the CIA!
Jack White
Will Mr. Frank explain to us how he qualified to be at the CLOSED DOOR HEARINGS?
I keep up with JFK stuff fairly well and I do not recall Congressional hearings in 1984.
He seems to know a lot about RENEGADE CIA OFFICERS. Is he connected to the CIA? (If, so...he can't admit it, can he?)
Maybe Mr. Frank will give us more details.
Jack White
-
Some think that YOUNG Chauncey Holt was the OLD tramp in Dealey Plaza.
Look at these 1963 photos and decide for yourself.
Jack
-
Here's an article on the Flight 175 photos, originally published in La Vanguardia, a national newspaper in Barcelona, Spain. (Here's a joke: imagine this being published in the New York Times or Washington Post, one of our national newspapers. Ha ha ha ha.)
According to the article, La Vanguardia contacted Boeing, which refused to comment on grounds of "national security." It referred them to the 9/11 commission. (Another joke. Ha ha ha ha.)
This is the image studied by the Spanish, who first
noticed the anomalous bulge under the fuselage.
Jack
Here is the bulge, as seen on the Spanish website.
Jack
-
Here's an article on the Flight 175 photos, originally published in La Vanguardia, a national newspaper in Barcelona, Spain. (Here's a joke: imagine this being published in the New York Times or Washington Post, one of our national newspapers. Ha ha ha ha.)
According to the article, La Vanguardia contacted Boeing, which refused to comment on grounds of "national security." It referred them to the 9/11 commission. (Another joke. Ha ha ha ha.)
This is the image studied by the Spanish, who first
noticed the anomalous bulge under the fuselage.
Jack
-
Thanks, Jack.
If you look at the background of this Jay Skaggs image below, is that the cement mixing tower you referred to?
If it is, does that help with some perspective? I'm still lost having never visited Dealey Plaza.
James
Yes. That is it. View looks west from near TSBD toward Stemmons.
Note the string of boxcars behind the autos.
Jack
-
Jack,
I looked at the website and I think people are just making things up.
Tony
Here is something written by a 20-year old named Brandon.
He has studied the facts.
Jack White
QUOTE:
09/11 Think for Yourself
By Brandon T.
Sep 11, 2003
I write this totally without want for personal gain, folly, or to get some personal agenda accomplished. I urge you, as an American with the ability to draw conclusions for yourself to seriously consider listening to what I'm writing. Pay attention to the points I've presented, and then remember them when you watch all of the upcoming 9/11 programs on television. Almost all of the points I present you can either confirm or deny with your own two eyes.
Another message to the reader: I've researched for hours what I saw with my very own eyes on 9/11/01. The only reason I bothered doing so was to convince myself (with no outside influences) that the doubts I had floating in my head were wrong, and that everything I had been told about the attacks was true. I could not.
I now pose some of the same questions to you, and hope that through logical thought, free of whimsy, that you'd not necessarily come to any conclusions, but acknowledge the fact that most of the story doesn't add up-it's all in the visual evidence, and if you believe nothing I write, remember the things I tell you can be confirmed by merely watching them. I INSIST you to continue reading through, and keep whatever mindset you had before, or freely change your mind.
Once again, I write this piece with no political affiliation, I offer NO conspiracies or my ideas of what happened, and there are no instances of me telling you how to think. Thank you in advance for reading this piece.
I could write countless hours of drivel (as is done widely) on how US Intelligence should have protected us, national security failures, a lack of credible evidence, or whose fault it may or may not have been. But let's skip through all of the accusations and get right to the events of 9/11 themselves.
Four airliners were hijacked on 9/11, when the hijacking of just one would have been unprecedented in the history of US commercial airline travel. (These kinds of situations have frequently occurred in many other countries). This had never happened before, but all of a sudden four planes have been hijacked-not at all impossible, but highly unlikely-I will always give the benefit of the doubt when possible.
These planes all contained abnormally small numbers of passengers for transcontinental flights at any time of the year, not just for that particular season. It is a FACT that American airspace is the safest in the world. That is due mostly to an incredible air defense system that operates 24/7 with the utmost vigilance for protecting our skies. The main reason that America, the country with the most airports, flights, and passengers has never had a situation like the one over Lockerbie is because we know where and what everything is up there.
The most famous example of how good it is? Remember a couple years before 9/11-back when famed golfer Payne Stewart's plane depressurized while flying over the Midwest US? Mere minutes after it was determined that everyone in the jet was most likely dead, and that there was no one flying the plane, Air Force jets were scrambled to intercept the craft (which flew for several hours on autopilot) in case it reached a metropolitan area where it might crash into a building or neighborhood.
The plan (which is S.O.P.) was to shoot down the jet over a sparsely populated area where no one on the ground could be injured in case the plane crashed, or if debris from the missile strikes rained down to the earth. Fortunately, the plane did not have to be fired upon, but instead ran out of fuel and careened into a pasture, ending the morbid ordeal. www.bushoccupation.com/3610_o1a.pdf
Let's fast forward to 9/11, and let me BEG a question of you: Why were none of those jets engaged by fighter jets, even though one was in the air at the very least 30 minutes, and the plane that "crashed" in Shanksville, PA proceeded unmolested for more than an hour and a half. There were Air Guard planes that can reach the World Trade Center in less than 10 minutes-at less than maximum speed.
If there were jets with visual contact of Payne Stewart's 15-person private jet after minutes, then why did not a single jet reach any of the HUGE commercial airlines, especially when they're headed at not just any city, but NEW YORK? What's so ironic is that a failure on the part of air defense would have been better than not even reacting to it…Think about that. The fact that these planes crashed into ANYTHING, when they should have been scrapped, is in itself inexcusable. If you didn't click on the link, then do it now, and see for yourself exactly what I mean.
Which brings us to the inside of the planes
No one outside of the people on that flight knows EXACTLY what happened inside, but there are certain facts that have made themselves clear. The hijackers apparently overtook the plane using knives and/or box-cutters. They couldn't have had anything larger. A machete, which is much more fearsome than a box-cutter would have been noticed by any TSA employee, no matter how incompetent they may be.
I fully understand the perilous situation the passengers were in, and the terror that must have ensued, but I have another pointed question: Why were 40-75 people on each flight containing no more than 4-5 terrorists unable to overtake their captors-who are "wielding" box-cutters and kitchen knives? You have GOT to be kidding me. If I were on a plane with 65 people, of only 11 of which are grown men, there is NO WAY in hell that 5 scrawny middle-eastern guys are going to hijack my flight and threaten our lives.
That's just ridiculous. (If the hijackers had some ANY kind of gun, even a six-shooter, then I wouldn't be writing this section-honestly) The men on Flight 93 said "Let's Roll!"-What happened then? Was every one of them methodically sliced and diced by the all-powerful box-cutters? I don't think so, but I'll never know now. For all of you skeptical guys, surrender your virility and tell me that you believe that 4 men (average stature and build) could successfully take YOUR plane with box-cutters and then fly it into a building?
"But Brandon", you say," what if they were holding hostages?" Then those hostages were just a very unlucky little group, because survival instinct tells you that those couple sacrifices will save many, many more lives. (Same concept as shooting down errant planes over non-occupied areas of land-kill a few to save many) As far as saying the hijackers (two EXPERIENCED pilots are required to fly a 757) then crashed the planes is like saying you learned how to drive on the NASCAR circuit by playing Spy Hunter for Nintendo.
Flight 77 at the Pentagon (here's where you can start seeing for yourself)
When I really looked at the damage done to the Pentagon was when I first lost faith in the integrity of what I'd been led to believe. This is a shining example of why others I know have changed their minds too. I've kept this very simple up to know, and I will continue doing so. Flight 77, after flying aimlessly around our airspace does a beeline for the Pentagon. We have the flight paths-were we just watching 'em? I never noticed anything very peculiar about the Pentagon damage that was aired-until I saw the damage BEFORE THE ROOF COLLAPSED. www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/911/pages/collapse.htm
You don't even have to worry about that smaller hole that was formed before the collapse, because the hole AFTER the roof collapsed is still TOO SMALL and free of 757 wreckage. A 757 is 155 feet long, two stories high, and is 124 feet wide. The hole itself is only 65 feet wide! There is no damage where the wings should have hit! There is no massive fire damage that would lead you believe that it was able to consume the ENTIRE plane. The smoke from the fire was INCREDIBLE, but isn't consistent with the amount of fire damage done.
None of the pictures I've seen are doctored, they all come from mainstream media, and the ones above are from the government! If you look at the hole, you can also see how when the roof fell. It was almost intact, aside from having fallen downward. Luckier even that the plane hit in an area of the Pentagon that was being RENOVATED-what good fortune! It was reported that 125 employees of the Pentagon perished, and their bodies were recovered.
Hold on just one second: You're telling me that 120,000lbs of bodies, luggage, 757 fuselage, wings, engines, and seats were all incinerated, but we managed to recover 125 bodies of Pentagon workers amidst all the carnage. The websites I've listed all give excellent high quality shots of not a scrap of plane. If you don't trust them, go to MSNBC or CNN and look up the pictures there-it's all the same.
Did you see all the guys in white suits on all of those pictures, too? Who are they? Did you see (watch your documentaries) the more than 15 men carrying away a large crate covered by a blue tarp? What's in there? "BUT BRANDON, there's a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon!"
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. There are 5 whole frames of Pentagon parking lot security cam footage that has been released to the public. http://thepowerhour.com/postings-four/french-911.htm (there are many authentic pictures, too) I won't over-analyze it for you, but I will describe it, in the hopes it will encourage you to look further.
What you don't see (strangely enough) is a 757-what you WILL see is the extreme tip of something white, blurry and obviously moving very fast right to left (into the Pentagon) it is on (of course) the edge of the screen-which is why you only see the tip of "it". The next frame shows an explosion from the Pentagon. If that plane was traveling a 400mph-it was doing slightly under 300, (or so we've been told) then you should be able to see the plane crossing the camera's line of sight-but you don't, you only see the explosion.
Which brings me all the way around to the safe airspace topic again. Another question too: If a commercial airliner full of fuel and people were flying towards the Pentagon-the most secure facility in the world, then why wasn't AT LEAST that one plane engaged. Jets could have been there in less than 10 minutes! (There are air bases in close proximity to the Pentagon) But I guess it really doesn't matter, since it crashed into the part that was being renovated, right? Riiiiight. People, do you understand yet? Have I presented any theories? No I haven't. Facts speak for themselves. Put it together people-but not until we talk about the World Trade Center.
The Horrific Collapse of the World Trade Center
Minuro Yamasaki, a prominent engineer in the 60's and early 70's, designed the World Trade Centers. He beat out 12 other companies for the contract to build them on the west side of Manhattan. Pay Attention here. The design of the World Trade Center incorporated a steel skeleton around a series of 47 independent steel beam structures that bore the brunt of the building's weight. They were located in the centers of the structures. These steel beams were the strongest, and tallest in the Americas-of any building of the era. They were after all, the world's tallest structures.
Keep in mind the structural integrity and composition of these buildings, until a pair of planes turned them into scrap metal. (Literally) When the towers were constructed, they were "made a safe place to work, even more safe than the time period's requirements." That's straight from the mouth of a WTC historian. Most, if not all of the people associated with them had the same comments about it. Oh, I almost forgot-the World Trade Center was built to withstand the impact of a BOEING 707! (A smaller plane than the 757)
Yamasaki and his design team did not think it was necessary, but incorporated the designs anyway. (The History Channel Documentary "The World Trade Centers: Rise and Fall of an American Icon) Sure, a 707 was slower, but how much room for errors do you plan for when doing these things? A bomber hit the Empire State Building in 1945, and the only damage was a hole, and fires that were put out. Wreckage fell more than 60 stories to the ground. Where's the debris from those 9/11 planes? The same documentary documents that the World Trade Center were designed to also withstand 150mph winds!
Which brings us to the collisions. When the first plane hit, it smacked DIRECTLY into the middle of one of the sides, about 80 floors up www.wtc.pkl.net/photos/wtcboom.jpg. You can immediately see a large gash cut in the side of the building. You can also see a fire start to develop on the inside of the building. The fire itself is very black and sooty-as you would expect it to be.
At this point in the attack, people are running from the fire, not because they think that the building's going to collapse on top of them. The first impact didn't even cause the building to shudder farther away from the initial contact. If you look at the camera footage of the WTC lobby, it looked as if IT had been bombed. The explanation for that was that jet fuel had traveled down the elevator shaft, where it had exploded down in the lobby more than 1100 feet below, yet there were no reports of fire throughout the building…strange.
Another problem with that explanation is that the elevator shafts used large elevators, which you took to a certain higher floor, and from there you took a more direct elevator to your office. You had to get off the large elevator because they were in different shafts-no shaft went directly to from the top to the bottom floors.
And now to the collapses…
The fuel that supposedly weakened the steel beams enough to cause them to melt is not hot enough to completely shear through metal that would have to be uniformly weakened piece by piece in order to create the IMPLOSION you all saw with your own two eyes. So the fire burned through the skin of the building, through all of the offices, and the elevator shaft where it then began to eat away at the steel, while dripping down the elevator shafts to the lobby, right? The most perfectly done non-controlled demolition in history was done by jet fuel-why do the real demolition crews just not pour jet fuel on the structures they're going to level.
I can AMAZINGLY let all of these far-fetched explanations ride, but wait! The second tower! The second collision happened about 17 minutes after the first impact, but collapsed first-strange enough, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt. But then you must look at that collision and ask yourself how that tower fell first when the impact almost hit DIRECTLY at the corner, causing MOSTLY ALL of the jet fuel to erupt in a gigantic fireball. (Of jet fuel)
So I ask, how that building fell first even though it suffered nowhere near the dousing of fuel that the first building did? "Because it hit the steel beams!!" people will say, but remember, those are in the center of the building. Again, and it should be much easier with this one ask yourself: "Is it really possible for jet fuel (almost all of which burned up in the explosion) to burn itself back into the building (explosion went out of the other "side of the corner"), eat through offices, floors, walls, and desks, eventually getting to the steel beams-all without warranting more fire warnings??
If what we're being told is correct, then a projectile that DOES NOT score a direct hit causes MUCH, MUCH worse damage. We don't we just start bombing the corners of all the buildings of our enemies. Again, don't fool yourself.
The manner in which the towers fell indicates a total structural fracture that had to have occurred evenly at equal points around the supports, not from one side, or one corner. In pure physics, the side that was weaker would've tilted and fallen away-maybe not totally missing the building under it, but not imploding directly on it. It would have tipped-as the top section of one building did, before it disappeared in ALL THAT DAMN DUST! Have you even seen something so strange? (Maybe if you live near Mount Kilauea)
A final event I don't have the proper info to discuss is Flight 93 that crashed in Shanksville, PA. -Leaving a debris trail of more than a mile-even though it did a nosedive into the ground. Look also at that footage, and you'll never see a large piece of wreckage, but you will see an almost empty crater.
If you've been trying to heavily scrutinize the content of my writing, I'm sure you've noticed that I have presented no theories, only dealing in fact. Theorists are stupid; they don't understand that you can't piece together puzzles you don't even have all of the pieces to.
If everything that happened on 9/11/01 added up, then I wouldn't be asking questions like this-because they would have ABSOLUTELY no grounds, and solid proof would destroy any arguments I might have presented. I voted for G.W.B when I was 18, and believed in the good of his causes, until they became specific actions to further our (his, US) domain all over the world. Again, this is not fueled by any grievances against the Republican Party or Bush himself, but by the declining quality of the true American way of life. Are you surprised that no independent investigation has been launched into 9/11/01 after reading all of this? They would rip though everything in almost a day.
In Parting, remember these six random things:
1. There are no confirmed Iraq-Al Qaeda ties
2. There hasn't been ONE WMD found in Iraq, and our troops are STILL being killed there. If we find ONE, I will take back everything I've said about the War in Iraq.
3. There has only been one thermonuclear attack ever in the history of the world-actually, there were two. They happened at two places you might have heard of-Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
4. Where's Osama?
5. 5. GWB is asking the UN for 86 Billion dollars after spitting in their faces before we Invaded Iraq, and the economy is good because it costs 4 billion a month to keep our boys in Iraq, we're giving more tax cuts, all the while making our borders safer than ever. Right.
"IT IS BETTER TO WRAP YOURSELF IN THE CONSTITUTION AND BURN THE FLAG THAN IT IS TO BURN THE CONSTITUTION AND WRAP YOURSELF IN THE FLAG"
Brandon T. Age 20, Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
-
Hi all,
I was wondering if anyone can tell me where exactly this particular area of the car park is located?
Cheers,
James
James...the boxcars indicate the camera faces west. The car
appears to be going east, exiting onto the Elm extension by
the TSBD. I am puzzled by the steel tower seen. I will look
on some aerials for the tower.
Also puzzling is the cement batching mixing tower, which
is part of some construction project. It is behind the boxcars.
Jack
-
Jack,
What is your source of the surveillance image of the first plane just before it hit the first tower? I have never seen this image nor heard of it.
I thought the only image of the plane just before hitting the tower was in the French videotape, which shows the actual hit.
I will try to find the source and post it.
Jack
The analysis of the image is found at
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/analysis_wtc.html
It is not my analysis, but it seems plausible. Make of
it what you will. I find it interesting.
Jack
-
Jack,
What is your source of the surveillance image of the first plane just before it hit the first tower? I have never seen this image nor heard of it.
I thought the only image of the plane just before hitting the tower was in the French videotape, which shows the actual hit.
I will try to find the source and post it.
Jack
-
However, there are several excellent theories on the
www if one visits all the websites. (Theorizing that
the US govt was involved)...the best theory is that
all 4 planes were NOT HIJACKED AT ALL, but directed
by radio THAT BECAUSE OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY
they should land at an "unspecified" government airbase.
Tony...check this website (one of many).
http://www.public-action.com/911/bumble.html
Jack
-
However, there are several excellent theories on the
www if one visits all the websites. (Theorizing that
the US govt was involved)...the best theory is that
all 4 planes were NOT HIJACKED AT ALL, but directed
by radio THAT BECAUSE OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY
they should land at an "unspecified" government airbase.
The pilots were also told to TURN OFF THEIR TRANSPONDERS.
Remember, all 4 planes were loaded by only one fourth
passenger capacity. At the govt airbase, the passengers
and crew were ALL LOADED INTO FLIGHT 93, which was
then the last plane airborne AND WAS SHOT DOWN OVER
PENNSYLVANIA. In the meantime, pilotless drones (Global
Hawks disguised as airliners) struck the WTC I and II and
the Pentagon. The Global Hawk has about the same
wingspan as a 757.
This is not my theory. But it is both plausible and possible.
See illustration.
Thanks for your response.
Jack White
Tony...another analysis.
Jack
Yet another Global Hawk analysis, Pentagon.
Jack
-
However, there are several excellent theories on the
www if one visits all the websites. (Theorizing that
the US govt was involved)...the best theory is that
all 4 planes were NOT HIJACKED AT ALL, but directed
by radio THAT BECAUSE OF A NATIONAL EMERGENCY
they should land at an "unspecified" government airbase.
The pilots were also told to TURN OFF THEIR TRANSPONDERS.
Remember, all 4 planes were loaded by only one fourth
passenger capacity. At the govt airbase, the passengers
and crew were ALL LOADED INTO FLIGHT 93, which was
then the last plane airborne AND WAS SHOT DOWN OVER
PENNSYLVANIA. In the meantime, pilotless drones (Global
Hawks disguised as airliners) struck the WTC I and II and
the Pentagon. The Global Hawk has about the same
wingspan as a 757.
This is not my theory. But it is both plausible and possible.
See illustration.
Thanks for your response.
Jack White
Tony...another analysis.
Jack
The Throat Wound
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Jack White
It is probably inaccurate to call the structures atop the knolls storm DRAINS.
Drains are in the gutters at street level. These pits are seem to have nothing
to drain, BECAUSE THERE IS LITTLE THERE TO DRAIN.
It is a flat area with FLAT rail tracks and a FLAT parking lot. The grated pits
are accesses to the drain system...for what purpose I do not know. Possibly
they might serve as drains in a deluge, but any slope to them is not apparent.
The attached shows the "opening" in the 1960s. Note that somone
standing in the 5-foot deep pit could see UNDER the fence.
Note the "steampipe" across the middle of the picture.
Jack